rufus-t-firefly:dittybopper: Regardless of whether it's strange or not, it doesn't say that the right is limited to those actively enrolled in an organize militia.

It's not all that strange, either:

In criminal prosecutions, the trial of the facts near where they happen is so essential to the security of the life, liberty, and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed... N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXVII (1784).

That one is referring specifically to criminal prosecutions and is explaining why this clause is necessary. And the second clause is directly related to the first. You can't look at that and say it applies to civil cases as well. You could use this to explain that the Second Amendment is indeed limiting arms to members of the militia.

Nope. Let's take out the bolded part: " no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed". Doesn't change how that law works.Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXIII (1784).

That one refers to an ex post facto laws, and then says they can't be made, so it's limiting. The clause also explains the need for this article. You can't turn around and say this limits anything other than "retrospective laws." So it's not a direct comparison to the 2nd Amendment's phrasing.

Let's do the same as above: "No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences", referring to "Retrospective laws". Doesn't change the meaning one whit.Economy being a most essential virtue in all states, especially in a young one; no pension shall be granted, but in consideration of actual services, and such pensions ought to be granted with great caution, by the legislature, and never for more than one year at a time. N.H. Const. pt. I, art. XXXVI (1784).

That one is explaining the rationale for the law.

Exactly. It's the same for the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment. It's a rationale, not a limitation.The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . R.I. Const. art. I, § 20 (1842)

As is this one.

The last two are not limiting, but the first two look like they are.

Nope. Above, I edited the comments to remove the explanatory clauses, and the operative clauses still read the same. Perhaps the second example I gave is reaching a *LITTLE* (but not too much), but then I still gave 3 solid examples of non-limiting explanatory clauses.

My contention was that having a non-limiting explanatory clause wasn't necessarily "strange", which was the original contention.

vygramul:Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?

No, but it might be the part where I point out that good mortar support is crucial to any small unit action and resupply is vital to every military action.

Even if all our hypothetical rednecks have AR-15s to fight off the Mexican invader, without resupply they'll just exhaust their ammo supplies that much faster. And without mortars (to say nothing of tube artillery and close air support), they'll be eaten alive. Ask the Taliban. They have mortars and RPGs. Hell, even 3rd-rate groups like AQIM have mortars and RPGs.

sprawl15:I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.

Quiet down. The last thing we need is some desperate conservative to start a "Legalize Meth" campaign in hopes of regaining power. Sadly, I could see the Confederate states, including my Confederate-in-spirit-only state of Kentucky, doing that exact thing, before pot even.

sprawl15:Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.

If you have to justify an action, aren't you limiting all the other ways in which that action can be done that do not fall under the justifying circumstances?

and not just any militia mind you. a "well ordered" militia. in other words, one with firm and fast rules and regulations under which there is a command structure. food, guns, training and equipment.

It's "well regulated" not "well ordered" but both words carry the dual meaning. It's not really as clear as it's made out to be. That was on purpose. Like most things in the constitution, The Founders punted. Their job was to agree on the framework enough to put them in a new and fragile nation's basis of law. In the process, they were able to settle precisely fark all. That's why we have been perfecting and clarifying the verbiage for 2 centuries.

The Well Regulated Militia, was argued by federalists to mean a standing army, and was therefore treated as the training, arming, uniforming, and most importantly, centralization of the armed forces.

The anti-federalists argued that it was the role of the states to regulate their own militia, equip, train and lead them. And to allow the federal government to call on them in national defense with proper authority given by congress.

It was phrased as it was specifically to PROMOTE this confusion, rather than assuage it. It got the AF's and the F's to sit down at a table and think that the second amendment was written with them in mind.

The two bolded parts are why we have an active duty Armed Forces, Reserves, and the Army and Air National Guard. We couldn't figure out what they meant, so we ended up with both a federal and a state (albeit federally regulated) military. Some states have their own militias in addition to the National Guard though. (Click to know more)

Anti_illuminati:sprawl15: Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.

Unfortunately, these people are not always alone.

If a good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and such a poor decision hurts those close to him, that's too farking bad. But if it's meth, then we should suction our panties a couple inches deep because it suddenly becomes a magnitude of tragedy greater worthy of government intervention.

sprawl15:whistleridge: Curious that these sorts are always so willing to express their 2nd Amendment rights that they utterly ignore everyone else's 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment rights, namely a right to due process in determining whether a crime has been committed, the right to face their accusers and have a trial, by a jury, and receive just punishment for said crime if found guilty.

hey look ad hominem

No, this is an ad hominem: You're wrong because you're a dumb doody fathead. So there. Nyeah.

vygramul:Typically, yes, but I'd state it more accurately as states being able to regulate that which is not forbidden to be regulated. A state can't limit your freedom of speech any more than the feds can.

Which is a lot. Both can regulate it quite a bit. See the DNC invention: "Free Speech Zones".

Let's try something:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

sprawl15:Anti_illuminati: sprawl15: Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.

Unfortunately, these people are not always alone.

If a good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and such a poor decision hurts those close to him, that's too farking bad. But if it's meth, then we should suction our panties a couple inches deep because it suddenly becomes a magnitude of tragedy greater worthy of government intervention.

If said good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and causes a fire that kills those close to him, that would be about on par with a meth lab blowing up and killing everyone in the apartment it was in.

vygramul:Can we apply that reasoning to limit 1st amendment rights to colonial printing capabilities? After all, at least one of those guys ordered ammunition off the Internet, which didn't exist when they wrote the 1st amendment...

What is curious is that so many who support the 2nd Amendment seem so opposed to everyone enjoying the protection of the 1st.

And then there are those who just think that the freedom to assemble is quaint as well.

Here's the thing: many of our rights are essentially, at their core, the right to piss other people off. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, we have rights to disagree, and STILL be Americans. Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, pagans, Scientologists, and even Moonies. Many of the others are to secure the citizens' ability to seek redress for abrogation of those rights.

Equality under the law is another one that folks seem to be hazy on, as well as privacy. Equally important. The right of the citizen to live their lives without having someone in the government telling them that they're doing it wrong because their neighbors feel oogy about it. So long as that life doesn't impinge on others', then drive on. Say unpopular things, and understand that it freedom of speech doesn't guarantee that others won't exercise their right to disagree, only that the government can't shut you down for being unpopular.

vygramul:whistleridge: The paradox being, of course, that such limits entirely gut the 'well-regulated militia' bit. If you think a bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles and sport guns (even fully automatic ones) are going to even slow down a modern army, you're dreaming.

Go look at an armored gunship. Even an old one, like a cobra. If you shoot at that with anything less than a javelin, you're asking to die. Personal weaponry isn't enough to meet that clause, but it's too much to stop the Loughners of the world.

So we need to be consistent: either make enough weaponry legal that the militia could actually survive (we'll overlook cost for a minute), or regulate it to the point that it's actually hard to shoot someplace up. This in-between crap is bs.

Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?

As a liberal with some military experience, I can tell you it's not useful against an insurgency, because the F-22 is designed as an air superiority (Read: air-to-air interceptor) fighter.

/Yes the F-22 was sold as having a ground attack role, a role it has not once used nor fully developed.//Too many other problems with the damned albatross to even get to that point.

IlGreven:sprawl15: Anti_illuminati: sprawl15: Satanic_Hamster: A lot of gun nuts seem to be great fans of the "slippery slope" argument. We can't have any regulation of guns because it will lead to gun bans. Funnily enough, the same people I know who scream the loudest at this also make the same argument against legalizing pot; because then they'll just legalize crack, you know?

I want drug laws to be so loose meth gets sold in a Walgreens.

If people want to melt their insides and die alone, that's their choice and fark 'em.

Unfortunately, these people are not always alone.

If a good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and such a poor decision hurts those close to him, that's too farking bad. But if it's meth, then we should suction our panties a couple inches deep because it suddenly becomes a magnitude of tragedy greater worthy of government intervention.

If said good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and causes a fire that kills those close to him, that would be about on par with a meth lab blowing up and killing everyone in the apartment it was in.

If meth was legal, you wouldn't have a bunch of unregulated death trap meth labs run by rednecks. You would have Walter White making that crap.

whistleridge:vygramul: Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?

No, but it might be the part where I point out that good mortar support is crucial to any small unit action and resupply is vital to every military action.

Even if all our hypothetical rednecks have AR-15s to fight off the Mexican invader, without resupply they'll just exhaust their ammo supplies that much faster. And without mortars (to say nothing of tube artillery and close air support), they'll be eaten alive. Ask the Taliban. They have mortars and RPGs. Hell, even 3rd-rate groups like AQIM have mortars and RPGs.

If the US ever fell into an insurrection of that type, the rebels would get RPGs from the same place the Syrian rebels do, and it's not the local gun shop.

The bottom line is that an insurrection is never going to be a purely civilians against purely military affair. In such a scenario, it's hard to imagine the military wouldn't fragment, as it did in 1860. After all, Lee turned down Union command, didn't he? But I'll take 20% of the military + 100 million assault rifles over 80% of the military. Especially since the 80% are in isolated, surrounded pockets.

IlGreven:If said good family man sticks his dick in a light socket and causes a fire that kills those close to him, that would be about on par with a meth lab blowing up and killing everyone in the apartment it was in.

And in both cases, you'd look at the paperwork for the installer. Did the electrician fark his job up so badly that simple genitals could set a house on fire? Did the meth lab fail to follow installation procedures and receive regular inspections?

Hint: making something kosher to sell enables regulation of that product and its production.

s2s2s2:vygramul: Typically, yes, but I'd state it more accurately as states being able to regulate that which is not forbidden to be regulated. A state can't limit your freedom of speech any more than the feds can.

Which is a lot. Both can regulate it quite a bit. See the DNC invention: "Free Speech Zones".

Let's try something:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

verbaltoxin:The two bolded parts are why we have an active duty Armed Forces, Reserves, and the Army and Air National Guard. We couldn't figure out what they meant, so we ended up with both a federal and a state (albeit federally regulated) military. Some states have their own militias in addition to the National Guard though. (Click to know more)

We also have the unorganized militia:

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are-(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And this unorganized militia is expected to "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

vygramul:whistleridge: vygramul: Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?

No, but it might be the part where I point out that good mortar support is crucial to any small unit action and resupply is vital to every military action.

Even if all our hypothetical rednecks have AR-15s to fight off the Mexican invader, without resupply they'll just exhaust their ammo supplies that much faster. And without mortars (to say nothing of tube artillery and close air support), they'll be eaten alive. Ask the Taliban. They have mortars and RPGs. Hell, even 3rd-rate groups like AQIM have mortars and RPGs.

If the US ever fell into an insurrection of that type, the rebels would get RPGs from the same place the Syrian rebels do, and it's not the local gun shop.

The bottom line is that an insurrection is never going to be a purely civilians against purely military affair. In such a scenario, it's hard to imagine the military wouldn't fragment, as it did in 1860. After all, Lee turned down Union command, didn't he? But I'll take 20% of the military + 100 million assault rifles over 80% of the military. Especially since the 80% are in isolated, surrounded pockets.

So...run our country today in perpetual fear of a bloodbath to come? You and I both know that in a nuclear world, there is zero chance of an invader ever setting a non-glowing foot on US soil. If you think a city makes a tempting target, imagine what an invasion fleet full of fat slow troopships would look like.

If we ever get to the point that we're down to 20% of our military relying on assistance from - let's be realistic, 100 million will never happen - 10 million rednecks with assault rifles, we may as well hang it up, because at the point the aliens, vampires, or zombies are probably going to win.

Well...they're right, in a way. It's true: guns don't kill people, any more than chainsaws, lathes, forklifts, or any other piece of powered equipment kills people. A gun is just a machine. In fact, a machine gun has a lot in common with a lathe.

Your often-stated belief that Armageddon will happen in your lifetime. Your fervent endorsement of literally unhinged candidates like Palin, Santorum, Rand Paul, and Bachmann. Your honest acceptance of the idea that Barack Obama is the WORST. PRESIDENT. EVAR. Your total disregard for the environment. Your utter lack of understanding of basic financial principles. The way you think you can cut taxes, increase military spending, AND balance the budget - while fighting two wars. Your constant harping on how bad it is that teachers can't lead classroom prayers and Creationism isn't taught in school, while simultaneously complaining that Islam is beginning to pervade government and we're secretly trending towards sharia law. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SHARIA IS.

And this isn't about you being 'conservative', either. Reagan was a conservative's conservative. I didn't like him, but I could work for him. George H. W. Bush was a conservative, and while I didn't agree with his fiscal policies I did and do respect the hell out of the man. He's everything a proud public servant should embody. I don't agree with all conservative policies, but I acknowledge there is underlying logic to many of them, and - pay attention, because this is important - I can work with them.

But you...you're ignorant, uneducated, absolutist, utterly unwilling to compromise, and apparently divorced from reality. And no...I don't want you to have a gun. If you honestly think Obama was born in Kenya, the Ryan Budget can work, and war with Iran is in ...

This. The day I stopped contributing to the NRA was the day I realized that, as an atheist and supporter of gay rights, I had more to fear from the average NRA member than I did from the government taking everyone's guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still pro-gun. I still think shall-issue concealed carry should be the law of the land (though business owners and particularly bars should have the right - but not the obligation - to prohibit concealed carry on their own premises), and that most proposed assault weapons bans (including the one that was law for a decade) have little effect on actual violence. I just have more important things to decide my vote upon.

vygramul:whistleridge: vygramul: Is this where liberals start posting pics of the F-22 with "not particularly useful against an insurrection" captions?

No, but it might be the part where I point out that good mortar support is crucial to any small unit action and resupply is vital to every military action.

Even if all our hypothetical rednecks have AR-15s to fight off the Mexican invader, without resupply they'll just exhaust their ammo supplies that much faster. And without mortars (to say nothing of tube artillery and close air support), they'll be eaten alive. Ask the Taliban. They have mortars and RPGs. Hell, even 3rd-rate groups like AQIM have mortars and RPGs.

If the US ever fell into an insurrection of that type, the rebels would get RPGs from the same place the Syrian rebels do, and it's not the local gun shop.

The bottom line is that an insurrection is never going to be a purely civilians against purely military affair. In such a scenario, it's hard to imagine the military wouldn't fragment, as it did in 1860. After all, Lee turned down Union command, didn't he? But I'll take 20% of the military + 100 million assault rifles over 80% of the military. Especially since the 80% are in isolated, surrounded pockets.

The reason rebels in Syria get that stuff is because there are supply lines established that the Syrian government can't control. Syria is on a huge continent, with lots of back-roads to transport arms over land and by sea. The US government has two coasts it can blockade with impunity, and Canada has a border it can help the US government seal. The US-Mexico border, thanks to the very same policies these gun nuts support, is heavily fortified and militarized. So where are the guns coming in, is the question? How are they getting to the armed, right wing insurrection once the legal supply lines have been shut down?

If any gun-toting Republican really wanted to prep for doomsday and fight off the US government, they're about 200 years too late.

hubiestubert:What is curious is that so many who support the 2nd Amendment seem so opposed to everyone enjoying the protection of the 1st.

That's a false dichotomy: Most of the staunch Second Amendment people I know value *ALL* of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they get *PISSED* because if you ignore the protection of one amendment (Usually the Second), then there is no reason to believe the others won't be ignored. Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.

whistleridge:So...run our country today in perpetual fear of a bloodbath to come? You and I both know that in a nuclear world, there is zero chance of an invader ever setting a non-glowing foot on US soil. If you think a city makes a tempting target, imagine what an invasion fleet full of fat slow troopships would look like.

If we ever get to the point that we're down to 20% of our military relying on assistance from - let's be realistic, 100 million will never happen - 10 million rednecks with assault rifles, we may as well hang it up, because at the point the aliens, vampires, or zombies are probably going to win.

And in the meantime, lots of schools will keep getting shot up...

I'm not following what you're saying here - are you saying that the US will fall into a revolution and while that's going on, we'll be invaded by North Korea and China a resurgent Austria-Hungarian Empire and that we'll be left with only 10 million rednecks with whom to defend ourselves?

dittybopper:Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.

Please introduce me to these people. I have a unique investment opportunity involving some rather special, some have so far as called them "magic," beans, and I feel these are the sort of savvy individuals I could really work with.

So what they are saying in the article is stop voting in Republicans like Ronald Reagan who kept signing in bans and restrictions on firearms throughout his whole time in politics, and even afterwards? Or sorry I mean down with Obama. He is taking away our guns again just like he did in 2009 after he got into office.

dittybopper:verbaltoxin: The two bolded parts are why we have an active duty Armed Forces, Reserves, and the Army and Air National Guard. We couldn't figure out what they meant, so we ended up with both a federal and a state (albeit federally regulated) military. Some states have their own militias in addition to the National Guard though. (Click to know more)

We also have the unorganized militia:

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are-(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And this unorganized militia is expected to "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

That part of my statement you cut out already provides a link to that: state defense forces, which are still regulated in part by the US government.

"Unorganized" doesn't technically mean the wackos in Hutaree. Those militias are borderline insurgent groups with no helpful use toward state or national security. They are big groups of whackers, who get in the way rather than help out. Sometimes they do some shady sh*t that lands them in jail.

verbaltoxin:The reason rebels in Syria get that stuff is because there are supply lines established that the Syrian government can't control. Syria is on a huge continent, with lots of back-roads to transport arms over land and by sea. The US government has two coasts it can blockade with impunity, and Canada has a border it can help the US government seal. The US-Mexico border, thanks to the very same policies these gun nuts support, is heavily fortified and militarized. So where are the guns coming in, is the question? How are they getting to the armed, right wing insurrection once the legal supply lines have been shut down?

If any gun-toting Republican really wanted to prep for doomsday and fight off the US government, they're about 200 years too late.

You think the Canadians can seal off that border any better than the US can seal off the Mexican border? And how's that working out, anyway? I thought border fences are trivially defeated by a 6' ladder or a spade you buy at the dollar store. Now it's an impermeable membrane? When did that happen?

dittybopper:Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.

I dunno, man, NRA's been getting a little... nuts with the partisan shiat lately. While they still provide a valuable service in their vehement opposition to any restrictions on the 2nd amendment, since the late 90s or so they've been getting less and less... credible, with the encouraging the "Obama's grabbing our guns" shiat and neglecting the sporting aspect of the organization entirely in favor of almost solely focusing on the self-defense aspect. Which isn't necessarily illegitimate in itself, just kinda... uncomfortably paranoid for an organization supposedly consisting of lawyers and lawmakers.

Basically, I don't think putting the ACLU and the NRA in the same sentence is really legitimate anymore. The ACLU is chugging along basically as it always has, focusing on first and fourth amendment cases over others, while the NRA is now an industry advocate focusing on fearmongering rather than being a civil liberties organization at all.

vygramul:verbaltoxin: The reason rebels in Syria get that stuff is because there are supply lines established that the Syrian government can't control. Syria is on a huge continent, with lots of back-roads to transport arms over land and by sea. The US government has two coasts it can blockade with impunity, and Canada has a border it can help the US government seal. The US-Mexico border, thanks to the very same policies these gun nuts support, is heavily fortified and militarized. So where are the guns coming in, is the question? How are they getting to the armed, right wing insurrection once the legal supply lines have been shut down?

If any gun-toting Republican really wanted to prep for doomsday and fight off the US government, they're about 200 years too late.

You think the Canadians can seal off that border any better than the US can seal off the Mexican border? And how's that working out, anyway? I thought border fences are trivially defeated by a 6' ladder or a spade you buy at the dollar store. Now it's an impermeable membrane? When did that happen?

I guess you ignored the past year's stream of stories about armed UAV's patrolling the US-Mexico borders. Or the walls that look like this:

Or there's the fact that Mexican immigrants are leaving, rather than entering the US right now. Link

So with a militarized border, patrolled by Hellfire-armed UAV's, with Mexico's federales and Army on the other side, tell me, just why should anyone South of the border want to sell a bunch of white, Mexican-hating rednecks guns and ammo? Why when these are the exact same people who support kicking Mexican immigrants out of the country in the first place?

dittybopper:hubiestubert: What is curious is that so many who support the 2nd Amendment seem so opposed to everyone enjoying the protection of the 1st.

That's a false dichotomy: Most of the staunch Second Amendment people I know value *ALL* of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they get *PISSED* because if you ignore the protection of one amendment (Usually the Second), then there is no reason to believe the others won't be ignored. Lots of people I know, some of them Farkers, belong to the ACLU *AND* the NRA, because the NRA fills an ideological hole that the ACLU isn't interested in.

It isn't a one for one issue. That is kind of the issue. It's not just about free speech, but about that laundry list that IS the First Amendment, not to mention pesky things like the 14th that some folks seem to forget. I am a strong proponent for the 1st, as well as the 2nd, and even the 5th and 14th.

The 2nd Amendment gives folks the means to secure the 1st. That means if the courts fail, or civil protections go belly up. The rights we have are nested protections, and what is interesting are the folks who chant the loudest for 2nd Amendment protections, are often chanting quite loudly to restrict the rights of their fellow citizens when they say, or do things that annoy them. Not just disagreeing in a loud and vociferous manner, but asking that our government restrict those rights, and therein lies the rub. Not the disagreement, but asking that our own government which should be outside the debate become involved.

The right to own a firearm was considered by the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 to be equal in importance to the right to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to practice religion.

Okay, so then go own a firearm. You can buy them at the sporting goods store.

Or is this one of those "war on XYZ" things, where we convince ourselves that the government is about to ban everything on this list?

Mithiwithi:This. The day I stopped contributing to the NRA was the day I realized that, as an atheist and supporter of gay rights, I had more to fear from the average NRA member than I did from the government taking everyone's guns.

Show me where the NRA takes a stance on religion or gay rights.

Show me where the NRA has meddled in the legislative process for anything unrelated to guns.

You are blaming the NRA for the actions of some of their members, but the NRA is a single issue organization.

Also, organizations like Pink Pistols are generally welcomed by the largely (but not totally) conservative gun owners, but they get more grief from gay organizations: